Microsoft employees are arguing among themselves over who is to blame for the delay in the launch of Windows Vista. One disgruntled insider named Who da'Punk voiced his feelings in a blog posting under the heading 'Vista 2007. Fire the leadership now!'.

It's a matter of principle. Employee grievances should be handled through the proper channels of communication within the company.

No doubt in perfect world that would just fine. But clearly this is the only recourse these people have. Especially after last year when someone was fired there simply for taking pictures of the G5 PowerMacs arriving at Microsoft's loading dock. After that episode, who would dare speak out. We all know know how Gates would love to have absolute control. But it could be advantageous for Microsoft to allow the employees to speak out like this rather than, say, file a class action lawsuit against the company. I'm sure they could find grounds for one if they look hard enough.

If they don't want certain things publicized, that's their call. The "rank and file" don't have the right to make that call for them.

This is old fashioned thinking. No doubt, Dale Carnegie would have appreciated that kind of mindset, but if we learned anything about corporations in this last century, it's that they must be held accountable whether it's something minor like this or something major like Enron. Bill, perhaps, needs to clean up his house, and if he doens't know where the dirt is maybe someone else can show him.

Especially after last year when someone was fired there simply for taking pictures of the G5 PowerMacs arriving at Microsoft's loading dock. After that episode, who would dare speak out. We all know know how Gates would love to have absolute control.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. How do you know that employee wasn't fired at the behest of Jobs himself? How do you know he wasn't fired because Jobs was furious at the breach of his precious security, and made some calls? The thing is you don't. You have no idea what Microsoft's internal politics are like, and that's precisely why such debates shouldn't be dragged out into a public that cannot understand the context.

No doubt, Dale Carnegie would have appreciated that kind of mindset, but if we learned anything about corporations in this last century, it's that they must be held accountable whether it's something minor like this or something major like Enron.

Accountability in the sense of Enron refers to actions that may be illegal. There is no allegations of illegal action here. Outside legality, the internal workings of a company are really none of the public's business.